1. Isaiah declared that the virgin would “conceive” and “bear a son,” whose name would be called Immanuel (7:14; Matthew 1:22-23). The “son” status is said to follow Mary’s conception.

    If “conception” is the equivalent of “begotten,” and Christ was “eternally begotten,” would not this suggest that he was “eternally conceived”?

    Later Isaiah prophetically declared, “a child is born, a son is given” (9:6).

    Does not this connect the role of being “son” with that of the birth of the child?

    If not, how can one ever have confidence in the meaningful interpretation of language?

    And if the “son” of this text is an “eternal son,” would this also imply that the “child” is an “eternal child”?

  2. Chuck,
    No; not a Modalist — where and how you would have gathered that, I don’t know.

    #1 You said:
    “All of God’s prophets are said to have been “sent”. It doesn’t mean they were already existing before they were born.”

    i. Let’s think for a minute… if I have a son, I can hold a birthday party for him; if I do not have a son, I cannot hold a birthday party for such an absent “him”.
    Similarly, if God didn’t have a Son, God couldn’t have “sent His Son (in the likeness of sinful flesh”. God sent His Son — from Heaven, like John says. He didn’t come on His own volition, but the Father sent Him — from above (John 3:31).

    ii. You’re, now, comparing a human “prophet” who was sent (who “HEARD FROM God”, like you said — under the old covenant, He spoke through prophets and angels) to Someone who had to take on the form of a human in order to “come down to Earth, and relate with us”. You’re comparing the prophets to the long-awaited “Prophet”, Who would be “like Moses” — Jesus, Who had actually SEEN God’s form. You’re comparing people who wouldn’t DREAM of calling themselves God, to Jesus, who said, “I AM”, “I am the Good Shepherd (YHWH is my Shepherd, I shall not want — Ps 23)” — and “BEFORE Abraham was, I AM”. “Before Abraham” leaves no doubt as to whether Jesus pre-existed.

    iii. If Jesus’s beginning was “conception” in the womb of Mary — and did not exist, before then — then WHY does it say that He “came down from the heavens”? Many other people also could not accept this Truth, either(“isn’t this Joseph’s son — and his mother we know? How then does He say that He ‘came down from Heaven’??”
    When God sent Jesus, He was in “the Heavens”; after this, Jesus “came down from the Heavens”; this cannot be said for any “prophet” — how can you compare them?

    As it says,
    Joh 3:31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is of the earth, and of the earth he speaketh; He that cometh from the Heavens is above all.

    #2 “And if the “son” of this text is an “eternal son”, would this also imply that the “child” is an “eternal child”?

    Yes; Jesus’s place will eternally be “son” of the Father. As long as the Father has existed (eternity; He never came into being), He had His Son born of Him (eternity; He never “grew up).

    #3 If you have a problem with a “single object” being (even thousands of) “multiple objects”, don’t study science — because quantum physics shows single objects existing in thousands of places — each of the thousands of “them”/”it” being distinct, yet indistinct, simultaneously. A single object — yet, existing in several places. It is mind-boggling, but that’s reality.

    It sort of “explains” miracles of “bi-location” — or even further “tri-location” — and Jesus’s ability to be active in ALL of our lives, currently [while remaining a singular object]; and the “omnipresent” aspect of God. Why could you not believe, then, in a singular God Who is Triune? It makes no sense. Even the Spirit is said to be seven; do you denounce that, too?

  3. You Judge for Yourself! The shocking contradiction of the Bible by evangelical scholars.

    In other words, Jesus is not the Son of God because He was born of a virgin.

    These are the words of evangelical scholar Dr. MacArthur. The pressure of “orthodoxy” and towing the line in what is acceptable “in church” has driven him to a very obvious negation of the plain words of Gabriel to Mary.

    In Luke 1:35 we have a simple, unifying explanation of how, why and when Jesus is the Son of God. It was precisely because of the biological miracle worked in Mary that Jesus is the Son of God. God became the Father of the Son of God by miracle. Here are the words of Luke and Gabriel, to be carefully compared with the words of John MacArthur which contradict them!

    Unpacking the meaning of the virgin birth, Gabriel said…

    For this reason precisely (dio kai), the one to be begotten will be called the Son of God.

    Gabriel offered no other reason, because there is no other basis for Jesus’ origin [genesis, Mat 1.1, 18-20] as the Son of God.

    To be “called the Son of God” is of course the same as “to be the Son of God”. Compare:

    Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called the sons of God. Matt. 5:9


    Your reward will be great and you will be sons of the Highest. Luke 6:35

    Equally in collision with Gabriel is the bold assertion of Chuck Swindoll and Roy Zuck, general editors of Understanding Christian Theology, p. 570. They write:

    Christ has existed eternally as the Son of God… whenever the title Son of God is used it speaks of his divine essence…

    When the title Son of God is used of Christ, it has nothing to do with his birth to Mary. As Son of God he was not born…

    Now let us hear Gabriel in Luke 1:35. In answer to Mary’s trusting and touching enquiry as to how she might become pregnant, not being married, the angel said…

    Holy spirit will come over you and the power of the Highest One will overshadow you. For that reason precisely (dio kai), the one begotten will be called holy, Son of God.

    I trust our readers will ponder this amazing rejection of the plain teaching of Scripture. The angel provides a concise explanation as to why and how Jesus is the Son of God. A huge lesson can be learned from this unaccountable contradiction of the sacred text. Could anything demonstrate more clearly that “church” is at odds with the biblical definition of Jesus as Son of God?

  4. We might add this confirmation to the above from the classic commentary on Luke in A commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, Volume 1 by Frédéric Louis Godet(p. 93):

    We have then here, from the mouth of the angel himself, an authentic explanation of the term ‘Son of God.’ After this explanation Mary could only understand the title ‘Son of God’ in this sense: a human being of whose existence God is the immediate author.

    It does not convey the idea of preexistence.

    That is the biblical Jesus, Son of God. The only authentic one, certified by the Angel himself.

  5. Dr. Buzzard,
    How you can still believe what you do, after having been faced with the avalanche of information in the debate (Deity of Messiah), I cannot find; what interest do you have in pushing this idea forth, since it was so obviously false?

  6. Dan1el

    How you can still believe what you do, after having been faced with the avalanche of information in the debate (Deity of Messiah), I cannot find; what interest do you have in pushing this idea forth, since it was so obviously false?

    Thank you for your comments but you have not dealt with the text.

    We need you to tell us what Luke 1:35 means?

    Jesus is the Son of God precisely because of the miracle in Mary. Why is this hard at all?

    We both speak English.

    Bluster does not advance anyone’s cause! Tight logical argument from the words is helpful.

    Why do you think Servetus gave up his life by being burned at the state on this same issue?

    Do you think I sit down and dream up false ideas so that I can push them forth?

    Why would I bother?

    I don’t think you have done much reading on this subject, since you write as though the idea is new to you.

  7. Sir Buzzard,
    First of all, I do not view Mt., Mk or Lk as authoritative Scripture (but MOST of all, not Luke, since it is the most problematic of all the Gospels, and its writer has made errors in writing Acts, as well); so, using an argument from “specific words” in Luke means nothing at all for me.

    Secondly, you’re right — I don’t know as much as you or Dr. Brown on the subject; however, I watched the team of Dr. White and Dr. Brown thoroughly rebut your points in the debate (next time, you shouldn’t pair yourself with that other gentleman, who didn’t even seem “present”): you are the one who did not deal with the texts set forth by Drs. Brown & White.

    Thirdly, why make these accusations of bluster at me? Isn’t that, in itself, bluster?

    Fourthly, as to why you put forth this idea, I think you just might enjoy the attention of putting for a “different”, “revolutionary” and “novel” idea; however, I think you need to be careful about the judgment that you might be incurring in doing so.

    Finally, quantum physics reports that objects are INHERENTLY “compound unities”; there is no trouble understanding the single trinity, therein: are you familiar with the science?


  8. After posting, I re-read #2, and I realized that what I’d said about Sir Anthony Buzzard III’s debate partner wasn’t very considerate; I apologize. I don’t know whether lofradio will edit it, or…

  9. Dan1el


    Obviously if Luke is not Scripture for you, you do not belong in a Bible discussion! You should always make that clear.

    Yours is a different game entirely and you are entitled to your opinion.

    Quantum physics has nothing to do with singular personal pronouns!

  10. Anthony,

    Do you have a comment cocerning the word “henceforth” from the KJV where it appears in Isaiah 9:7, which plainly states that the kingdom of the one who’s name (at that time) was to be called, Wonderful, Counseler, The mighty God, the everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace, whose government of peace, was presently on the increase, as it is also today?

    It seems to me as I read of the prophesies of David, that though his throne was upon this earth, yet he sat in a heavenly realm, (Eph 2:6)having a place according to the grace of God, (Eph 4:7) and this is a most marvelous thing indeed, isn’t it?

    Also, would you consider the Trinity doctrine to be a marketing strategy used by many, which is not far off from the Word given us in John 1:1-14?

  11. Dear Anthony Buzzard,

    I really enjoy your debates. I’ve seen you debate Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. James White on the Jewish Voice TV program. I’ve also heard you debate Dr. Brown on this radio show and I’ve heard you debate Dr. White on programs like Unbelievable, on the Premier Christian radio. I try to listen as objectively as possible and with an open mind/heart.

    I would like to ask you your view on Romans 10:9-10,13 and Joel 3:5. I understand that you know Greek and if I’m not mistaken you may know Hebrew as well. Anyway, this passage, to me, makes it very clear that calling on the name of Yeshua/Jesus is equivalent of calling on the name of Yahweh. Could we say the same about Jeremiah, Isaiah, Jonah or even the highly exalted Moses?

    Romans 10:9-10,13 (NASB)

    9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
    10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

    V. 13 Πᾶς γὰρ ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου σωθήσεται

    As you know, Paul was quoting from Joel 3:5;

    Joel 3:5

    καὶ ἔσται πᾶς ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου σωθήσεται ὅτι ἐν τῷ ὄρει Σιων καὶ ἐν Ιερουσαλημ ἔσται ἀνασῳζόμενος καθότι εἶπεν κύριος καὶ εὐαγγελιζόμενοι οὓς κύριος προσκέκληται

    והיה כל אשר־יקרא בשם יהוה ימלט כי בהר־ציון ובירושלם תהיה פליטה כאשר אמר יהוה ובשרידים אשר יהוה קרא

    And it shall come to pass that all who call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered, for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be refugees and in survivors that the Lord called.

    “v’hayah kol asher-yikera b’shem adonai yimmalet”, How can Paul apply this Yahweh text to Yeshua?

    That’s my question to you.

    Blessings and much respect.

  12. Anthony,

    Please look at the site Tom so graciously put up for us in post ’61. I think it’s the best explaination I have ever seen that would explain how anyone could possibly hold to the Trinity doctrine. I’ve never heard it explained that way.

    Would you consider that the drawing with the 9 pointed star in the middle, the triangle, and the arches around it, would be OK by you, if instead of saying “God” in the center of the 9 pointed star, it said, “The Word” or “The Word which is God”?

    If still not OK by you, with the change / changes I have just suggested, would it be better in your opionion with such a change?

    I don’t think we have to necessarily agree with the drawing as there is still some room for interpretation of some of the way the words are used, or could be used.

    Maybe the drawing is saying that there is a distintion between Jesus and the Father, as there is a distinction between the Father and the Spirit, as there is also a distinction between the Spirit and the Son, and these distinctions are represented by the blue arches with words contained therein.

  13. Tom,

    The site suggested in ’55 didn’t do anything for me. I was reminded of Col 2:8.

    I have seen a porcupine. I don’t need to give birth to one to know what one looks like.

    I have heard of God and know a bit about his character, but that doesn’t mean I should necessarily agree with the ways of the Trinitaraians. I see nothing in the Bible that says I should use their terms.

    Tom, can you show me anything from the Bible that says I should use their terms, or that requires me to?

    It seems to me that their terms may be right in their own eyes, but not necessarily right in the eyes of others.

    Do you believe the Trinity doctrine is something the Church should absolutely have consensus on while it is still on this earth?

  14. Ray,

    Regarding the terms, see http://thechifiles.com/2011/04/17/answering-unitarians-6-whats-in-a-name/

    Do you believe the Trinity doctrine is something the Church should absolutely have consensus on while it is still on this earth?

    Well, it would be irresponsible of me to just answer that question with a yes or no without first asking the following: what do you mean by “the Trinity doctrine”? What is it you have in mind here? Let me know and I’ll tell you if I think the entire Church has to believe it or not.

  15. Also, here,

    I have seen a porcupine. I don’t need to give birth to one to know what one looks like.

    you’ve completely missed what I was saying.

    My point was that for someone to insist that the only way they would believe in a porcupine is to give birth to one is ludicrous because number one it’s just not going to happen, and number two, as you point out, there are plenty of other methods for demonstrating their existence.

    In the same way, for someone to insist that the only way they can believe in the Trinity is to have a passage saying “one God three Persons” is ludicrous because number one it’s not going to happen, and number two there are plenty of other methods for demonstrating the Trinity’s existence (as provided in the article).

  16. “If Jesus’s beginning was “conception” in the womb of Mary — and did not exist, before then — then WHY does it say that He “came down from the heavens”?” – Dan1el

    Why would God send down a fertilized egg instead of an adult? Maybe people wouldn’t be so prone to worship Mary if that happened?

    “Therefore, the question is: is God’s oneness a oneness of being and of person (as a Unitarian believes), or a oneness of being but not of person (as a Trinitarian believes)?” – Tom

    A Trinitarian believes God’s oneness is many and is not singular of being or of person. You say that the Son could forgive us, but that the Father couldn’t unless He had the blood of His Son. Different Beings AND different Persons, otherwise they would react to us in the same way. IF you want to claim they are the same BEING, then either BOTH the FATHER and the SON FORGIVE us by GRACE, or they BOTH require BLOOD. NOW WHO’S BLOOD WILL THE SON HAVE SINCE YOU REJECT THE FACT THAT GOD CAN FORGIVE OUTRIGHT ON HIS OWN TERMS?

  17. Juan,

    I’m not interested in your philosophical hangups about blood redemption, I’m interested in what the text says. If you have an argument from the words of scripture, bring it on. If you want to argue abstract philosophical points, carry on – but I will not be engaging.

  18. And since I suppose I’ve ventured to argue somewhat philosophically in my article, I guess I owe you this one.


    What you are doing is assuming there can be no distinction between persons in the Godhead. That’s a false assumption not borne out by Scripture, and fails to hold water as a result.

  19. Tom,

    I think both you and the article misses the point about people and their perceptions.

    A man might demonstrate how a porcupine existes in many ways, but one’s description of one might not be completely correct.

    Maybe the Trinity does exist, but more accurately as being the Word, as the Word is described by the Word rather than as the Trinity is explained in the article you referred to.

    Let’s define the Trinity as the explaination given by the article you referred us to. By that, do you believe the Church is to have consensus on the Trinity doctine as being true, perfect, and pure, while the Church is still on this earth?

    Some Trinitarians seem to presume that their understanding of the Word as the Trinity is correct, perfect, and pure, and therefore they set forth that the Trinity does indeed exist, and that God exists as their description of him.

    Many people believe God exists as they understand him, but are not so sure that he exists as another’s understanding of him which may be a bit different than their own understanding of God.

    That’s the part I hope you get.

    Suppose I called a porcupine by another name and described him a bit differently than you have read about porcupines. How can you be sure that your porcupine which you call by another name is
    the one that exists by your description?

    Is your description better than what was previously written about porcupines? Or, is your name for the porcupine better than any other name already given?

  20. Tom, I think what Juan is saying about distinction of persons as pertaining to God the Father and Jesus his Son is that there is a distinction between them. I don’t think he’s been saying what you have assumed in ’71.

    It seems to me that God has determined that without the shedding of blood there will be no forgiveness of sins. I believe Jesus understood this which is one big reason why he went to the cross for our salvation. I believe he was so filled with the love of God that though he felt all of our weakness, he ‘had’ to do it. I believe it was the love of God that so moved him to do it as he was so filled with it and never lost it.

  21. Tom

    Being is that which makes something what it is. Person is what makes someone who they are.

    With respect, you are imposing post-biblical language upon the text of scripture. First establish the difference between “Beign” and “Person” in the Bible. God is said to be “One LORD”. I am referring to the Greek text of Mar 12.29 where “one” enumarates ‘how many God is’. He is “One Single LORD”.

    Furthermore, Personal singular pronouns enumarates Him as a Single Person repeatedly. These are simple the biblical facts of biblical grammar.

    echad as “compund one”

    Your point about “one” is logically mistaken. You are making up your own rules. The word “one” in “one team/family” etc., is not different from the word “one” in, say, “one dollar”. So, show from a dictionary that echad has changed its meaning when it modifies a compound noun. It has not! Just look at the lexicons, “one” means “one single”.

    One final point. Deal with the Greek of Mar 12.29 and the fact that the “one God” is NEVER defined as “Father, Son, HS” in scripture. And that 11 000 occurences of the words for “god”, NEVER MEAN A TRIUNE GOD! Please quote verses from scripture where “god” means “the triune God”. Thank you!!

    PS: James White says that we should recognize that “the word ‘god’ can refer to all three Persons at once” [The Forgotten Trinity, p. 71]. He gives NO SCRIPTURE TO SUPPORT HIS ASSERTION.

    Will somebody on here do this please.

  22. It seems to me that I may refer to God the Father, Jesus his Son, and the holy Spirit as “God”, and what verse might I need more than where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty?

    (I Cor 3:17)

    God the Father and Jesus his Son together are one God to me. It’s that way because of the unity they have together in the holy Spirit. All together that adds up to the Word to me, which is God. (John 1:1,2)

    There are more reasons that the Father and the Son together are one God, but unity in the holy Spirit is one reason why such seems to be so to me.

    I believe I have the liberty in Christ to say so.
    I don’t believe I’m misleading anyone here by saying so. I believe it to be acceptable to God for me to say so.

    I don’t believe I’ve sinned by saying so. I don’t believe I’ve twisted the meaning of scripture by showing others some observations I have made as I read or thought upon those verses of scripture.

    I believe some of what I say about God as I make reference to some scripture verses is the fruit of the scriputure that the Word produces.

    Anthony, any comments regarding this? Do you notice any sin in me because I’ve written what I have written on this post? Have I abused my liberty in Christ by writing these things? Am I guilty of corrupting any texts by writing these things?

    I’m not aware of any sin on my part by doing so, but I don’t always see my sins right away. So often when I have sinned, I will later be convicted by the holy Spirit for doing so. I hope the holy Spirit convicts me of all my sins.

    Sometimes I do things and conviction never comes.
    Sometimes I seem to be the better for some of the things I write or say. Not always is it for the worse.

    Anthony, please tell us what you see that is wrong if anything in this post. If you do not respond to this, some might assume that there is nothing wrong with what I have written here.

    If you see me sin, please rebuke me. It doesn’t even need to be gentle.

    Some men will describe a porcupine in a manner in which another will not. This does not change the porcupine, but how does one know that his understanding of a porcupine is the right one?

    We have the holy Spirit to help us don’t we?

    Even if we have the right understanding in regards to a porcupine, it might not be that everyone must have the same understanding, the same light concerning it to be a true Christian.

    I understand that God is more important than a porcupine, and yet I believe the holy Spirit is able to convict a Christian who gives a wrong understanding of a porcupine, or insists that everyone must have the same understanding of a porcupine in order to be a true Christian.

    Maybe it’s the true Christians that understand that the porcupine is much greater than their understanding of one, that God made them in a greater glory than they have received about a porcupine.

    Does having the right understanding of a porcupine make a man right with God? Not necessarily in my opinion, and yet how often it is that a man might think he is right if he possesses a correct understanding even though it is limited, even if it be about something like a porcupine.

    There is more than one way to speak of a porcupine isn’t there?

    Some might even come up with a new name for a porcupine, or even use an archaic name for one.

    Are we all supposed to be exactly the same as regarding a porcupine? I don’t think that’s going to always be the case. Maybe it’s not supposed to be that way with us.

    Maybe we should allow for a little liberty among ourselves as we try to understand each other about what we believe and how we believe, perceive, and communicate things.

  23. Tom, I’m wondering if I could say that I’ve already responded to what your response to me on your blog is about, on this blog, even before I go there.

    Maybe I should go look at it and see anyway.

  24. I don’t think everyone has to have my understanding of things to be a Christian, even things pertaining to who or what God is.

    It seems in the past that so often when I thought I understood something from the Bible, later on I found out that I was either wrong, or didn’t know much of anything about the subject as there was so much more about it that there is to know.

    Maybe true Christians know more about what a miserable condition they are in themselves than about what may be lacking in others.

    Sometimes people process information so much that it becomes like processed food. Some people like the same thing but in another form.

  25. Let’s suppose that the Lord Jesus, the one who’s called Wonderful, Counseler, The mighty God, the one whose kingdom and government was in the increase at the time Isaiah wrote, and whose kingdom it is now, as it always had been his, given to him of the Father, (Isaiah 9:7) was indeed the one who appeared unto Abraham as he was at the door of his tent, along with two others, who were the angels who went to Sodom, and that Abraham indeed saw Jesus.

    As we know from the New Testament, that he who has seen Jesus has seen God, (the Father) as Jesus said in John 12;45 and 14:9,10.

    This then would mean to me that Abraham in seeing the Lord Jesus, saw God in the same sense that Philip saw God when he saw Jesus, though each one perhaps thinking they were seeing one rather than the other.

    This then to me can be seen as a matter of comparision, such that seeing Jesus is to see God, by comparison, for they both are the Word
    as John’s gospel said at the first.

    Comparing Jesus to God is by no means robbery.
    It doesn’t rob God the Father of anything. Nor does it represent Jesus unfairly in my opinion.

    This may be the view of many who do not necessarily consider themselves Trinitarians.

    For all I know, they could consider themselves Unitarians.

    I think it’s possible that Jesus could be the God of the Unitarians also. Wasn’t he Israel’s God whom they had not seen? (For the most part anyway. Let’s not forget Abraham, but then he wasn’t really Israel was he? …or was he? I’m not sure about that.)

  26. “What you are doing is assuming there can be no distinction between persons in the Godhead. That’s a false assumption not borne out by Scripture, and fails to hold water as a result.” – Tom

    So God is a team of spiritually different persons? One part of the team died temporarily (superficially?) to eternally appease another part for us. I just don’t see how that adds up, so I took on something that made sense.
    1) That God isn’t a diverse team.
    2) That God is perfectly capable of dealing completely with His creation without coming into His creation for any sort of event (incl. a ‘sacrificial’ one). To claim otherwise is to reject God’s knowledge and power.
    3) That Jesus demonstrated who God the Father was. He didn’t demonstrate a spiritually different entity – who responds differently to the same circumstances.

    Good grief. Basically you’re saying that if left to His own devices God the Father would destroy His creation completely. When Jesus pre-existed in heaven he couldn’t stop God the Father’s intentions, so he had to come down to earth and put on a show to make the Father stop – FORGIVE THEM FATHER! This dramatic story sounds more like a soap opera than anything I would think to attribute to God.

    If what you say is in fact the truth, then I pray that God either knocks me upside the head with a miraculous revelation or strikes me down so I will cease to rouse rubble when it ought not be roused.

  27. I listen to the late R.B.Thieme J.R.; on Mp3-CD(S).I first heard Pastor-Teacher>Bob-Thieme-J.R. on a Christian radio station>KPRZ-1210 on the am-dial about 15-years ago. He breaks down the original languages and puts a person’s doctrinal-closet in order.When I heard him,the verse that was said of the Lord Jesus Christ came immediately to mind…He spoke as one with authority!.” After the Holy-Spirit he is a GPS>for accurarcy.Monday thru Friday call>1-713-621-3740 for free Mp3(s) of over 8,000-hours.

  28. Juan,

    Could it make sense to you if God had a Son with him from all eternity, who was always a part of him, who lived in him, by him, and for him in every way, being the light of him, before anything was made that was made, being with God and his holy Spirit, being one with God and his holy Spirit, in unity, purpose, love, righteousness, holy communion, fully sharing the divine nature of the Father, as also the holy Spirit of God does, and that this being so, was always a part of God’s purpose and plan of the ages, which God the Father would reveal as time went on, in order to bring about a holy family which would inhabit heaven and all of eternity, by Jesus Christ his Son?

    I’m not asking you if you believe this. I’m only asking if such a thing could make sense to you?

  29. Hope this isn’t too far off subject.

    Fish have predators and can be easily spooked. It’s good to stay low in the boat and try not to cast a long shadow.

    Fish like to be comfortable and hand out in places like under ledges, a cut bank, rocks, or deep pools, and watch for the food that comes down the main stream of current. (see Fishingnoob.com, #15 on the main page.)

    It seems to me that God had in mind fishing for men from the very beginning, way back when Jesus and the holy Spirit were with him, and I suppose not much of anything else, at at least not all that we now know of concerning those things that we now see and even some of those things that we read of in the Bible that we have not yet seen.

  30. Correction to ’33. First find the site, then click on Site Map, then on How To Find Fish, then on #15.

    God had it all planned out before the world was made, how to fish for men. He invested it all in Jesus.

  31. Here are the amazing statements (without text to support) from James White from his The Forgotten Trinity, p. 71, 91:

    As long as one recognizes that the word “God” can refer to the Father, to the Son, to the Spirit, or to all three persons at once…First one must assume unitarianism and refuse to see that “God” can refer either to the person of the Father, or can be used more generically of the Godhead en toto.

    White gives no texts to show that the word “God” ever means the Triune God!

    He also wrongly stated in 1998 to me that l’adoni [to “my lord”] and l’adonai [to “the Lord/LORD God”] would both appear exactly the same in the Greek LXX (long before the Massoretic pointing was put in). Actually in all 11 occurrences “to the lord [kurio] and to my lord [kurio mou]” are carefully differentiated in the LXX Greek. This shows that the careful distinction between adonai and adoni was in full force in BC times!

    Then this excellent evidence: The full examination of Karl Rahner on the word “God” from Theological Investigations says…

    We may outline our results as follows: Nowhere in the NT is there to be found a text with ‘o theos’ (GOD) which has unquestionably to be referred to the Trinitiarian God as a whole existing in Three Persons.

    The view is not justified that o theos is an expression which signifies the Trinity in the unity of its proper nature. (p. 143, 144)

    Murray Harris in his Jesus as God says:

    [In Heb. 1] o theos [God] was understood to be ‘God, the Father.’

    Similarly the differentiation made between o theos as the one who speaks in both eras, and uios (SON) as his final means of speaking shows that in the author’s mind it was not the Triune God of Christian theology who spoke to the forefathers by the prophets. That is to say that for the author of Hebrews (as for all NT writers one may suggest), the God of our fathers, YHVH, was no other than ‘the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.’

    Such a conclusion is entirely consistent with the regular NT usage of o theos. It would be inappropriate for Elohim or YHVH ever to refer to the Trinity in the OT, when in the NT theos regularly refers to the Father alone and apparently never to the Trinity. (p. 47)

    Here is what we can say: There are about 11,000 occurrences of the various words for GOD in the Bible (YHVH, ADONAI, o theos, Kurios, Elohim). Not one of them can be shown to mean “the Triune God, ie “God in Three Persons.”

    So when Bible writers wrote “GOD” they never had in mind a Triune God. That is because they did not believe in a Triune God.

    The Father is called GOD over 1300 times, and the Son is called “God” twice [John 20.28; Heb 1.8]! Moses is called “God” once [Ex 7.1]. In both these two cases, for Jesus, there is immediately another GOD in the context who is said to be the GOD of the Messiah!

    The Bible does not have the language to describe the Trinity. There is no word for “person” in the Trinitarian sense, as distinct from “being.” It would be like asking the Webster’s American Dictionary to tell you about Spanish words!

    The vocab of Person (hypostasis) and Being (Ousia) do not appear in the Bible, for God.

    The Bible as it stands could not describe the Trinity even if it wanted to!

    It does not have the right language. The Bible word for Person is NEPHESH (Heb.) and the Greek Psyche. God is said to be “one soul [Heb. nephesh; Gk. psyche]” = one individual Person. He speaks of Himself as “My soul.”

    Every human individual uses the same language. So if God is not one Person, then we would not be able to prove that King David is one Person!

    You have to impose a foreign and nonsensical form of language ON the Bible to make it speak Trinity!

    Therefore to explain Trinity one has to be able to say, as Millard Erickson states in his God in Three Persons (p. 270)…

    HE (GOD) are THREE and THEY is ONE.

    Erickson confesses that “it is simply impossible to explain the Trinity unequivocally” (p. 268). Yet “the system” requires that you believe it, or else!

    So you have to break the rules of language and make up your own rules in order to force the Trinity language on the Bible. Unitarians assume only that “I” means “I” and not “I Three.”

    This is not an assumption it is demonstrable fact of biblical grammar and language.

  32. Sir Buzzard,
    Someone “reading Scripture” that ISN’T Scripture (a bad translation) ISN’T reading Scripture; if it talks about being burned with a flame for eternity, if you think a flame is water (no basis for knowing the meaning of the word), you cannot have a grasp of the concept, based in reality; therefore, quantum physics has EVERYTHING to do with how we read the Word of God — it is a basis for measuring what a personal pronoun is.

  33. John’s gospel has been used to force the rest of the Bible, against the grain of the Scripture taken as a whole, into the later theology of the church councils. John 8:58,5 for example, has been used to promote the idea, absent from the rest of the New Testament, that Jesus is equal in every sense with God and preexisted as the “eternal God the Son.” A heavy concentration on John is then supported by a few verses in Paul. The synoptic gospels — Matthew, Mark and Luke — are not treated as primary data for finding out about God and Jesus. John is twisted and a distorted version of John is then read back into the rest of the Bible. John has been made the main support for the later theology of God as more than one Person, and Jesus as not originally human.

    What gets forgotten in all the quotations from John is that “John is as undeviating a witness as any in the New Testament to the fundamental tenet of Judaism, of unitary monotheism…(John 5:44; 17:3).”

    These texts in John ought to have provided a solid barrier against any watering down, modification, or “expansion” of Jesus’ own creedal statements. Unfortunately John’s and Jesus’ unitary monotheism has been swamped by texts marshaled from the same John and used against him, to contradict him and Jesus — and to contradict the lucidly straightforward and detailed account of Jesus the Son of God’s origin and thus who he really is.

  34. Jesus’s origin? Oh, you mean the Heavens?:

    1. Joh 3:31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is of the earth, and of the earth he speaketh: He that cometh from heaven is above all.

    2. Joh 6:38 For I am come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

    Meaning He pre-existed:

    1. Joh 1:15 John beareth witness of him, and crieth, saying, This was he of whom I said, He that cometh after me is become before me: for he was before me.

    If you say you believe Mt/Mk/Lk, do you acknowledge that John was born before Jesus? Then, what did John mean? Obviously, it wasn’t talking about God’s “plans” for all humanity before time, because then John couldn’t say that Jesus pre-existed him, since he either could’ve said that he pre-existed together with Jesus; even then, he could also say that he was “in the plans” before Jesus was, because he was “planned” before Him, because he “came into being” (if what you are saying is true) before Jesus.

    Not likely; John acknowledged the pre-existence of the Son.

    Sir Buzzard, I suggest you watch this great debate, called “The Deity of Messiah” — it is full of great, irrefutable proofs that Jesus pre-existed His human form.

    I especially like the point Dr. White that brought forth — that the glory Isaiah saw was Jesus’s glory, according to John’s Gospel.

  35. I think it’s fair to say that some of the ideas of men and the way they communicate what they have seen from scripture is often said in ways that we can not prove to be scripture.

    Truth can be said in many ways.


    Do you have a comment on the word “henceforth” used in the KJV @ Isaiah 9:7?

    What it looks like to me rather clearly is that the kingdom of heaven belonged to Jesus which was expanding at the time of Isaiah.

    I trust that it’s still in the increase, and that as Jesus had glory with the Father back then, at the time of Isaiah, he also does now, yet with a greater glory now, because of his work he did here on this earth.

    Hence we see the prophecy of Isaiah come to pass at least in part.

    I believe Jesus was there with God, and in God, being the Word which we have read of in John’s gospel governing in heaven with the Father.

    I believe in a holy communion, a full sharing, between all that the Bible speaks of as being the Word that was in the beginning.

    Concerning all that, I consider the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit to be that Word that was in the beginning before anything was created.

  36. I was just now reading Isaiah 65:1 where the Lord says that he was found of them that sought him not, and I thought I was finding Jesus in the Old Testament again, hidden in a mystery, for Isaiah also said, “I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name.”

    And what was the name of that nation that was called by the name of the Lord? Wasn’t it Israel?

    I looked at the name Israel in my Young’s Concordance and it says “ruling with God”

    That’s the new name given to Jacob. So isn’t the name of the Lord, “Ruling with God”? Isn’t that one of his names?

    The Lord is called by many names, Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, (Isaiah 9:6) etc.

  37. Dan1el-If you say you believe Mt/Mk/Lk

    Pot shots. No direct addressing of those that would hold you accountable. Please leave it alone if you will not dialogue in the on topic thread.

    Revelation 21
    8 But the cowards, unbelievers, vile, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars––their share will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.


  38. Bo,

    I appreciate you making Dan1el understand the seriousness of the positions he has espoused about the Scriptures, and yes, if he’s not willing to dialog about his extreme views, he shouldn’t post them here. Agreed! And I’m glad to hear he will seek out local believers to help him get these areas straightened out. But please don’t consign him to the lake of fire because you find him cowardly (or anything else on the list). Let’s try to help a struggling man become true and strong in his faith rather than call him out and condemn him.

  39. Dan1el

    I especially like the point Dr. White that brought forth — that the glory Isaiah saw was Jesus’s glory, according to John’s Gospel.

    That would make 1 YHWH too many. And its talking about Messiah’s “glory” not his person as such.

    Dr. Brown

    Let’s try to help a struggling man become true and strong in his faith rather than call him out and condemn him.

    Unless their “unorthodox” right? i.e. biblical unitarians.

  40. Ray

    Do you have a comment on the word “henceforth” used in the KJV @ Isaiah 9:7?

    Thanks. Could you tell us which verses in the OT refer to the Word/Son of God existing before the begetting of the Son?

    Was this the angel of the Lord, or what?

    How does the Son/word come into existence before he comes into existence in Luke 1:35?

    Isa 9:27 NASB gets the sense:

    …from then on…

    This is in view of the prophecy. Micah 4:7 is another example of “from then on…” from now on.

    If Jesus was functionlng actively in the time of Isaiah, one must explain how that Jesus is human at all! And one must do it without getting lost in a welter of confusing terminology about his divinity and humanity.

    Happily the Bible was written more easily than that. The MAN Messiah Jesus is quite clear. To be a human being, we are supposed to know, one must begin in the womb of a human mother.

    That model works best. There is alwasy the threatening possibility of a false Jesus, some sort of an angel.

    Heb 1 begs us not to fall for that false Jesus.


  41. Dr. Brown and Dan1el,

    I had no intention to consign anyone to the lake of fire. Just thought I would give Dan1el an opportunity to either “put up or shut up” about the synoptics not being scripture. I sent a shot across the bow, so to speak. Yes, I think that it is serious to toss out scripture, and posted that passage so that Dan1el would be reminded of the seriousness or the situation. He will not lock antlers with me, and that is fine. I just wanted to get his attention long enough to hear from his own mouth that he was done. Well enough. I can leave him to Author of scripture. I do not need to be the one that convinces him.

    Thanks for finally answering me Dan1el. No condemnation intended. If and when you are ready to look at the supposed discrepancies in the Bible with an open mind, I’ll be happy to help. It seems like you said that you would be interested in a book that discusses the answers to Biblical “contradictions” a few weeks back. Have you obtained one yet? There are many. The one that I have is called, “Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible” by John W. Haley.


  42. Dan1el

    You mentioned that you do not believe in the Synoptic Gospels as being divinely inspired so why are you even on a Christian blog such as this?

  43. Bowman is very vulnerable! Here from p. 166 of his Putting Jesus in His Place, The Case for the Deity of Christ:

    Jesus affirmed the Shema as the first and greatest commandment and in that regard his view was in the mainstream of Judaism…Paul and other NT writers echo the Shema.

    He admits that Jesus was a Jewish unitarian, by implication. If Jesus’ view was in the mainstream of Judaism this would be absolutely untrue if Jesus was a Trinitarian.

    He has 13 pages on HE IS LORD, pp. 157-170, and he constantly tells us of YHVH texts applied to Jesus in the New. BUT when he gets to Peter in Acts 2:34-36 he makes no ref to Ps. 110:1. He is talking about Jesus being made lord.

    This is amazing because he (Bowman) quotes Joel 2:32 (YHVH text) cited by Acts 2:21. But when he gets to Acts 2:34-36 where Peter says that God has made Jesus Lord and Christ according to Ps. 110:1 which is then cited in proof by Peter, Bowman has left the citation of Ps.110:1 out! This is obviously bad. He just turns a blind eye to the very text from Ps. 110:1 which Peter uses as prooftext for Jesus being Lord, and Bowman does not let us see.

    He makes no comment on the use of Ps 110:1 in Acts 2:34-36. And Ps. 110:1 is the definition for Jesus being Lord. Also he does not tell us that Jesus is “my lord” and “our lord” very often in the NT and there is no such thing as “my YHVH” or “our YHVH”! This shows that there is no equation or identity with YHVH. Jesus is our lord, my lord and God is YHVH.

    Furthermore, the older Cremer Lexicon of Gk NT is brilliant on Kurios:

    in John 20:28 it cannot be my YHVH, since YHVH never has suffixes

    Christ is never called kuriou o theos, the Lord our God, which would be quite unaccountable if YHVH were applied to Christ.

    If Christ Lord, in Luk 2:11 includes YHVH it would be YHVH Messiah.

    Lastly for the designation of Christ as Lord, there is a special point of connection and explanation in the OT

    [suppressed by Bowman!], viz. Ps 110:1 (Mark 12:36, 37; Luk 2;11 and Acts 2:36. Stress is accordingly laid upon the authority and kingship given to Christ based on this appellation (adoni)—cp I Cor. 8:4-6 “one Lord Jesus Christ.” Cp Jn 13:13, 14; Lk 6:46, why do you call me lord, lord).

Leave Your Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *